1. Field of the Invention
The method and apparatus of the present invention relate to electronic contract applications using electronic networks.
2. Background
There are dozens of different buyer-seller protocols in use today. However, almost all of those systems are seller-driven in the sense that they focus on the methods and processes available to the seller, allowing him to price, package or configure goods and services more effectively. Stores, catalogs, classified advertisements, telemarketing, auction houses, even on-line computerized reservation systems such as SABRE, are all seller-driven. Traditionally, it is the seller's job to attract buyers and then to complete the sale. Thus, in a seller-driven system, the advertising cost of the transaction and the attendant risks that such advertising will be unsuccessful falls upon the seller.
Most goods and services sold at retail are done so using a general seller-driven protocol whereby the seller sets a price and the buyer decides whether or not to accept that price. Prices for some services, such as airline tickets, might change frequently, but the buyer must still wait for the seller to offer a price he finds acceptable. Obviously, some forms of commerce offer far more give and take with offers and counteroffers being exchanged, however the vast majority of retail purchases utilize seller-driven, fixed-price, non-negotiable pricing protocols.
Auctions are probably the most frequently used system whereby prices are not fixed by the seller. Here too, the system is seller-driven. The buyer does not find the seller, rather the seller attracts numerous buyers who, as a group, determine the final selling price—which the seller may subsequently reject unless the item auctioned is being sold without a reserve.
Even on-line reservation systems are seller-driven. Airline reservation systems such as SABRE are in the business of constantly posting airfares. Travel agents and consumers are on the bid side of the process. However, since they cannot communicate their bids to the airlines, they must wait until an “asked” fare is quoted which meets their needs.
Other commerce systems are exchange-driven. These systems, such as NASDAQ or the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) match buyers and sellers by offering an efficient, fair and orderly marketplace. They favor neither buyers nor sellers, but simply effectuate communications that allow for the matching process to take place. An example of an automated exchange-driven commerce system for trading futures is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,903,201.
A buyer-driven system is one in which buyers find sellers, such as a “wanted to buy” classified ad. A help wanted ad is a buyer-driven inquiry since the employer is looking to locate and buy the services of a qualified employee. The inquiry is advertised to a large number of potential “sellers,” a number of which may respond by submitting their resumes to the prospective employer.
Buyer-driven systems yield certain benefits and efficiencies that other commerce systems do not. Buyers using such a system can exercise more control over the terms and conditions of their purchases. Additionally, when a large number of potential sellers exist, but those sellers do not have the resources to advertise globally, it makes sense for buyers, if they can, to take the initiative in communicating its needs to the sellers.
Currently, there exist certain unilateral buyer-driven systems of commerce. A good example of such a′system is the typical reward system wherein a “buyer” broadcasts/publishes an offer for a reward to anyone who completes a particular task. That type of system is unilateral because the offer can only be accepted by performance of the designated task. Thus, unilateral systems can be utilized only for limited types of transactions which allow for acceptance by performance.
Bilateral buyer-driven systems seek to consummate contracts between buyers and sellers based on mutual promises to perform. Bilateral buyer-driven systems, however, currently represent an extremely small portion of overall commerce due to a variety of factors. First, and perhaps foremost, buyers generally either cannot or do not want to invest the time, money or other resources required to locate an indefinite number of potential sellers and communicate the buyer's purchasing needs to each of the potential sellers. This is especially true of the individual consumer who often cannot afford to pay substantial transaction costs.
For example, an individual seeking car repair services generally would not want to contact every single repair shop and communicate details of his repair needs to each. The benefits to the consumer from doing so (e.g., achieving a lower price) would be vastly outweighed by the amount of time and money expended in the effort.
Also, buyer-driven systems are not prevalent because buyers do not want to be inundated with numerous offers from potential sellers, many of whom may be marginal or unqualified (e.g. a thousand real estate brokers or car dealers all calling one buyer). Buyer-driven systems impose inherent costs on sellers as well. If each buyer has a different set of purchasing specifications and communicates his needs using non-uniform language, sellers must pay a substantial cost even to review and understand each individual request. Moreover, sellers are often not amenable to customizing their products for individual buyers.
As a rule, the greater the number and complexity of the buyer's purchase conditions, the more difficult it is to have a buyer-driven market, since advertising costs generally rise with the number of conditions that must be communicated, and the potential number of sellers who can understand and fulfill increasingly complex conditions usually declines. Buyer-driven markets function best when there is a well-defined purchase need, when a “brand” provides quality assurance to the buyer such as the name of a major airline carrier or when the item is a commodity such as oil or coal.
An example of a regularly used bilateral buyer-driven process is the system utilized by large organizations such as companies or governments which want to purchase significant amounts of goods or services at the lowest possible price. To begin, they formulate a detailed written specification setting forth the quantities and requirements of what they are looking to buy. This document is typically called a “Request for Proposal” (RFP). Once finalized, RFPs are then distributed to a list of known potential suppliers. If the value of the RFP is high enough, as it is might be with a large government contract, the buyer may bear the added expense of trying to attract the widest number of sellers by paying to publish the RFP in newspapers and trade magazines.
Potential suppliers which identify an RFP that they might be able to fulfill, will first evaluate it to decide whether or not to invest the necessary time and effort to submit a formal proposal. Typically, some number of suppliers submit binding proposals to the buyer by a deadline established in the RFP. Once submitted, proposals are then evaluated by the buyer. One proposal is usually selected and the corresponding supplier notified that it has “won” the business at the price quoted.
Large organizations can take advantage of the benefits afforded by the RFP process because their volume buying represents a worthwhile opportunity for suppliers to compete for their business. They also have the resources to communicate their buying needs to a sufficient number of suppliers. As a result, they can often achieve substantial unit cost savings, especially on commodities or commodity services (such as paper clips or long distance service) and on perishable items (such as airline tickets and hotel rooms).
Individual consumers cannot effectively participate in such bilateral buyer-driven systems because they generally do not have the buying power and resources of large organizations. Some consumers have found ways to group together in order to achieve some measure of the volume buying power enjoyed by large organizations. Many consumers, however, are deterred from joining buying groups because of the groups' various requirements and limitations.
As commerce seeks to utilize the inherent advantages of the Internet, many types of commerce systems, such as malls, catalogs and auction house, are being implemented on the Internet. These approaches generally seek to create better seller or exchange-driven systems whereby the sale of goods and services is made more efficient.
While there have been some attempts to use the Internet to effectuate bilateral buyer-driven transactions, those attempts have been largely unsuccessful. Currently, there are “bulletin board” type sites on the Internet where buyers can post “wanted” advertising at little or no cost. Thus, any consumer could post his own RFP looking for companies willing to sell him the exact airline tickets they are looking to buy or a particular car with specified options included. Because Internet postings are global, the buyer theoretically has the ability to communicate his RFP to a large number of potential sellers. In practice, however, this process is ineffective as a buyer-driven system of commerce because potential sellers generally do not frequent the various “bulletin board” sites or respond to the individual RFPs.
Sellers are deterred from using such a process because there is no guarantee of the authenticity of the RFP, the cost of negotiating with individual consumers is often too high, and it is difficult to enforce any agreement (including payment guarantees) which may be reached between the consumer and the seller. Additionally, “bulletin boards” containing RFPs are scattered across the Internet making it difficult, if not impossible, for sellers to find relevant RFPs. Finally, when analyzing the RFPs that are posted on the Internet, sellers are confronted by an almost overwhelming number of different formats, conditions, terms, and language styles in the RFPs. Sellers must spend a large amount of time and money even simply to understand the prospective buyer's needs and the legal ramifications of the particular language used in each RFP. In sum, buyer RFPs posted on the Internet represent too much uncertainty for sellers. Sellers are not willing to spend the time and money finding and pursuing Internet RFPs. In turn, the absence of a critical mass of sellers reduces the incentive for buyers to post their RFPs.
Accordingly, there is a need for a centralized buyer-driven system of bilateral electronic commerce capable of being utilized by even small consumers to communicate their purchasing needs globally to potential sellers which addresses the deficiencies of the prior art. The advantages of such a system are manifold. It is the only way for a buyer efficiently to reach a large market of potential sellers. It also allows the buyer to set the terms he is willing to accept. As an additional advantage, it gives the sellers an indication of the state of the market for their product. Finally, since this technology is electronically based, costs are kept to a minimum.
A key element necessary to achieve a critical mass of seller participation in such a bilateral electronic buyer-driven system is the seller's ability to bind a buyer to a legal contract under the terms of the buyer's posted offer. In contrast to a non-binding request for proposal, a binding offer from a buyer is attractive to potential sellers because it sets out each and every term and condition under which the buyer will allow himself to be bound. Potential sellers do not need to worry about the costs of negotiating terms of sale with the individual buyer because the buyer has laid out all such terms in his offer. Additionally, allowing a seller to bind the buyer on the front end of the transaction will alleviate some seller concerns regarding enforcement because the seller has the opportunity to bind the buyer to a legally enforceable contract.
In order to understand the requirements necessary to form binding contracts through electronic commerce, a review of the current state of contract law is necessary.
Basic Contract Law
The formation of a legally binding contract requires three elements: offer, acceptance, and consideration. Put another way, an essential prerequisite to the formation of a contract is an agreement: a mutual manifestation of assent to the same terms. This mutual assent is established by a process of offer and acceptance. Further legal requirements are imposed by the Statute of Frauds, where applicable.
An offer has been defined as a manifestation of intent to act or refrain from acting in a specified way, so made as to justify a promise in understanding that a commitment has been made. A number of kinds of expressions border on, but are not, promises. The most important of these in the context of electronic commerce is a solicitation of an offer. For example, a clothing store advertisement of Brand X suit for $150 “today only” does not constitute an offer. The advertisement is merely an invitation to make an offer. Since the store has not specified a quantity nor included any language of commitment, an advertisement of this kind is only a statement of intention to sell or a preliminary proposal inviting offers. Similarly, the RFPs discussed above are merely solicitations of offers rather than bindable offers.
An offer may be accepted by any person in whom the power of acceptance is created. Because the offeror is the master of his offer, he controls the person or persons in whom a power of acceptance may be created. The identity of the offerees is determined by the reasonable person test. Thus, for example, it has been determined that a reward offer may ordinarily be accepted by anyone who knows of the offer, but once the offer has been accepted, no one else may accept. On the other hand, an offer to pay a sum of money to anyone who is willing to sell an 1869 Morgan Silver Dollar in M69 condition may be accepted by anyone who knows of the offer and by any number of persons. Essentially, the language of the offer determines to whom it is offered and who may accept it. Thus, by wording an offer appropriately, it can be directed to a number of persons but capable of acceptance by only one.
Under the doctrine of consideration, the third of the three basic elements of contract formation, gratuitous promises are not enforced. This doctrine does not pose any difficulties in the context of electronic commerce.
In order judicially to enforce a contract, the Statute of Frauds requires that a party produce a written copy of it. However, the rule is only invoked if the contract is of a certain type, such as a contract for the sale of real property. The primary purpose of this rule is to obviate perjury. The result is that oral contracts are often unenforceable. However, because this often leads to unjust results, courts are construing it narrowly and policy makers are lobbying for its repeal.
Electronic Contracting Law and the Current State of the Art.
With the advent of new technology, methods of doing business are rapidly expanding. These new methods challenge traditional contract principles, which are premised on personal contact and paper contracts. Thus, some legal issues in the field of electronic commerce remain unresolved.
One such technology is known as EDI, or electronic data interchange. It is known that, using EDI, one party can transfer information and legally relevant “documents” electronically to another for direct processing in the other party's information systems.
Most EDI environments involve ongoing relationships between companies engaged in a supply or similar contract that extends over time. In current practice, many EDI exchanges occur under broader contracts regulating the terms of the relationship between the two parties. These may be in the nature of requirements or franchise contracts. As applied directly to the EDI aspects of the relationship, the agreements are typically described as “trading partner” agreements. These agreements deal with under what terms, conditions, and limitations the EDI system will be employed to make or accept orders and, ideally, to define the legal consequences of the electronic exchanges between the parties to the trading agreement. Although this technology may also be used for isolated or intermittent transactions between people who have no direct prior dealings, it has not been used for global/non-personal buyer-driven offers.
EDI has not yet been the subject of much “lawmaking.” The evolution of EDI law has been primarily in commercial experimentation and model trading partner contract development, seeking an optimal contract structure for EDI use. Little reported litigation deals with EDI relationships. Thus, the legal issues raised by this technology are largely unresolved.
Despite the uncertainty, when an exchange occurs in a purely electronic environment, the threshold legal determination revolves around whether the electronic messages establishes an offer and acceptance given the absence of documentation and in the case of EDI, the absence of human decisions in the automated exchange.
The exchange of electronic messages that offer and accept a contractual relationship should form a contract with respect to the specific order. An offer consists of an expression of a willingness to enter a contract when that expression occurs in a form sufficiently concrete to establish that agreement. Under this doctrine, an electronic message may constitute the necessary expression of intent. Problems exist where unauthorized people or inaccurate information trigger an offer from a system. These problems could be solved by methods of attribution or authentication. Once questions of attribution are resolved, and subject to considerations about the Statute of Frauds and the like, no requirement exists in law that a contract offer be in writing or that there be a conscious, immediate intent to make a binding commitment.
Contract rules provide that acceptance must be made in the manner specifically required by the offeror. However, if no specification of the method for acceptance is made in the originating offer, acceptance may be in any manner and by any medium reasonable under the circumstances. Thus, acceptance by electronic message should be valid.
A further consideration in electronic commerce is the Statute of Frauds. In transactions involving a sale of goods for the price of $500 or more, U.C.C. Section 2-201 requires: (1) a writing; (2) containing a quantity term; (3) sufficient to indicate that a contract has been made; (4) signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. In the EDI context, this presents problems in reference to the existence of a “writing” and in the requirement of a “signature” by the party against whom enforcement is sought. U.C.C. Section 1-201(46) defines “writing” to include “printing, typewriting or any other intentional reduction to tangible form.” The critical aspect of this definition deals with the reduction of the agreement to tangible form. The purpose of requiring a writing to enforce a contract is to ensure some minimum level of proof of intent and avoid the risk of an entirely conjectural debate regarding the existence or scope of the agreement. The sufficiency of an electronic message as a “writing” under the Statute of Frauds depends on the manner in which one finds the message stored or produced. Case law generally supports the idea that a telex or telegram satisfies the writing requirement, although it may leave unanswered whether the writing contains a proper signature.
Of course, the writing requirement can be satisfied by other means. For example, if the electronic agreement is followed up by a letter or if the system routinely yields printed output, the requirement should be satisfied. But apart from a printed output at the receiving point or in a functional acknowledgment returned after receipt, the enforceability of a purely electronic contract depends on how the computer system retains records of the transmitted offer (or acceptance) and whether a court will accept the idea that electronic records reduce the message to tangible form.
The Statute of Frauds' signature requirement also leaves ambiguity about the legality of EDI-generated contracts. U.C.C. Section 1-201 (39) defines “signed” as including any “symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing.” Authentication here indicates that the signer assents to the writing and adopts it as his own. As a result, an arrangement in which the transmitting party includes otherwise not routine or required elements, codes or other indicia to confirm the authenticity of the message should satisfy the signature requirement. Ordinary EDI practice often requires such authentication code or symbol as a matter of course to maintain the security of the system itself, and this also seems to satisfy the Statute of Frauds problem.
Indeed, authentication systems have been developed specifically to ensure the enforceability of electronic contracts. One such method of authenticating electronic contracts in order to make them legally enforceable is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,191,613. That system utilizes, among other techniques, digital signatures to authenticate electronic contracts.
As discussed above, attribution via authentication is extremely important to creating binding contracts in a buyer-driven system of electronic commerce involving global posting of purchase offers—it is essential to the signature requirement of the Statute of Frauds. Authentication may become even more important in the future, if proposed U.C.C. revisions are implemented. For example, Proposed U.C.C. Section 2-212 states that an electronically formed contract is legally binding if the message is authenticated by a procedure previously agreed to by the parties.
Moreover, a bilateral buyer-driven system of commerce which authenticates the terms and conditions of buyer offers will be more likely to attract the attention of potential sellers, because they are assured of the legitimacy of the offer.
There is also a need for a third party to administer such a bilateral buyer-driven system. The third party can serve as a trusted arbitrator available to resolve contract disputes between the parties and thereby increase buyer and seller confidence in the system. Additionally, the third party can establish standard protocols, formats, terms and language to be used in buyer offers and thus make it easier for sellers to understand and assess individual offers. Finally, the third party can administer a site on the Internet where buyers can post their purchase offers and sellers can go to review the posted offers. Having all offers in a centralized location makes it easier for sellers to search for relevant purchase offers.
The applicant is unaware of the existence of any commercially-viable bilateral buyer-driven commerce system which contains the above features and addresses the above-described shortcomings in the prior art. Therefore, it is one object of the present invention to set forth a system of bilateral buyer-driven electronic commerce that offers the capability for individual buyers to issue authenticatable messages which contain the terms of a purchase offer and publish that purchase offer globally to potential sellers.
Another object of the present invention is to allow a seller who meets the terms of the purchase offer to bind the buyer to accept the seller's fulfillment of that offer.
Yet another object of the present invention is to allow the seller to be able to collect funds immediately upon his acceptance of the buyer's terms as set forth in the purchase offer.
It is a further object of the present invention to allow for a trusted third-party administrator whose decision regarding the fulfillment, adequacy or interpretation of any aspect of the process shall be binding on the parties.
It is another object of the present invention to allow the seller to receive part of his payment upon agreeing to the buyer's purchase offer, and a subsequent payment upon delivery of the goods or services called for in the buyer's purchase offer.
It is yet another object of the present invention to allow either buyers or sellers to remain anonymous up until such time as an agreement is consummated and for buyers to remain anonymous even after the agreement is consummated by using the trusted third-party as a relay system for delivery of goods or services called for by the buyer's purchase offer.
A further object of the present invention is to ensure that buyers using the inventive system are not inundated with inquiries or acceptances from unqualified sellers.
Yet a further object of the invention is to provide a system in which the identity of the buyer is authenticated along with the integrity of the buyer's purchase offer.
Another object of the invention is to provide a system in which the identity of the seller is authenticated in order to determine the seller's capacity to satisfy the conditions of the purchase offer.
It is another object of the present invention to allow sellers to submit authenticatable counteroffers to the buyer.
Yet another object of the present invention is that such counteroffers may allow the buyer to bind the seller to the counteroffer, subject to the authenticatable terms of that counteroffer.
It is a further object of the present invention to allow for delivery of digitally-based products such as certificates of insurance from the seller to the buyer according to the terms of the buyer's purchase offer and the cryptographic validation of such delivery.
It is another object of the present invention to allow for purchase offers where more than one seller may bind the buyer to the purchase offer.
Another object of the present invention is to show how all or part of the system can be practiced using non-electronic means such as printed media or advertisements in newspapers.
These and other objects of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art from the following detailed description of the invention, the accompanying drawings and the appended claims.